Bigotry Determined Webster’s New
World Dictionary defines “bigot” as “a person who holds blindly and
intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.” and “bigotry” as “the
behavior, attitude, or beliefs of a bigot.”

Police State Thomas Kachadurian’s column might get the facts right but misses the story.

Oppose The Shell Game Is this a
Shell Game? As a Democrat, I support increased taxes on motor fuels and
vehicles to provide funding for our transportation infrastructure.

Sugars On The Way Senator Patrick
Colbeck from Canton introduced a bill and the Senate passed it allowing
schools and Girl & Boy Scout troops to have up to 3 bake sales per
week.

Bad news from the Budget Wars

Bad News from the Budget WarsThe first round of the budget wars was fun, didnt you think?The rhetoric was especially amusing with plenty of melodrama from bothsides. If the politicians were correct, were doomed. Republicans said wewere doomed if we didnt cut at least $100 billion from the last fewmonths of the 2011 federal budget. Democrats said we were doomed if wecut more than $19 billion. In the end, both sides compromised on a $38.5 billion cut, considerablyless than the GOPs Official Level of Doom and considerably more thanthe Democrats. (Actually, once you subtract money that wasnt goingto be spent anyway and factor in cuts that dont begin until next yearor later, the actual impact on the 2011 budget is less than $500million out of a $1.65 trillion deficit.)The next chapter will be the debate over raising the debt ceiling to morethan $14 trillion. Its incomprehensible. It doesnt even look real whenyou write it down  $14,000,000,000,000.The hardcore budget-cutters, who care little about consequences andgreatly about bottom lines, vow to vote against it. We all understand,and many sympathize, with the sentiment. Unfortunately, failure toincrease the ceiling has some really dire consequences, like defaulting onour current loans, damaging our credit rating and, subsequently, devaluingthe dollar.If Congress manages to resolve the debt ceiling issue with minimalbloodshed well finally move on the main event, the 2012 budget.The facts, which will likely be ignored by both extremes, are stark. Fully63% of the budget is now consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaidand defense spending, the Big Four of the federal budget. There areadditional hundreds of billions spent on defense and security that are offthe books. Even worse, the percentage of spending on Social Security andMedicare will continue to rise dramatically as additional millions of BabyBoomers become eligible to use both.Even if we eliminated all spending other than the Big Four we still wouldnot balance the budget.Nevertheless, the battle lines have already been drawn.The starting point for Republicans will be Rep. Paul Ryans recentlyreleased proposal reducing spending by $6 trillion over the next 10years. The starting point for Democrats will be President Obamas proposalthat reducing spending by $4 trillion over the next 12 years.Neither plan balances the budget, eliminates annual deficits, reduces thedebt or addresses Social Security. Ryans plan actually increases defensespending and provides huge tax breaks for corporations and the rich.The keystone to the Ryan plan is the complete deconstruction of Medicare.Medicare began in 1965 as an amendment to Social Security legislation. The idea was to provide healthcare for Americans 65 and older at a timewhen senior Americans were being ravaged by poverty.Medicare has been plenty popular among those who receive it, less so amongthe medical community paid by it, and is abhorred by newly electedRepublicans who see it as unsustainable and a ripe target for cutting.A typical Medicare recipient has about 75-80% of their healthcare costscovered. The remainder must be covered with supplemental insurance orpaid for out-of-pocket.The Ryan plan would more than reverse that ratio. He would haveindividuals 65 and older pay for 84% of their healthcare needs throughprivate insurance and Medicare would cover the remaining 16%. His theoryis that private insurers, excited about the possibility of tens ofmillions of new customers, and in a perfect example of the free market atwork, will fall all over themselves to sign up these new policy holders. And at competitive rates, too.But health insurance isnt a typical supply-and-demand commodity. To beviable there must be a very large number of policy holders who rarely, ifever, have a health issue other than an annual check-up. They subsidizethose with chronic or catastrophic health issues.The tens of millions of seniors Ryan proposes to unleash on the healthinsurers will nearly all be heavy consumers of healthcare services orproducts, or soon will be. The pool of those doing the subsidizing willremain the same size. Premiums would necessarily skyrocket unless thereis some sort of significant government subsidy to either consumers orproviders. It wont work.President Obama and far too many Democrats, on the other hand, think thiscan be solved to a large degree by taxing the rich, closing tax loopholesand eliminating some tax breaks.What we call loopholes and tax breaks cost the treasury more than $1trillion a year. We almost all agree that those which allow hugecorporations to escape without paying any taxes at all need to bereformed. As should the laws that allow the likes of General Electric tocreate corporate shells headquartered in tax sheltering places like theCayman Islands and avoid U.S. taxes altogether.Which other loopholes should we close? Those that allow us to deductmortgage interest or college tuition or business expenses or out-of-pocketmedical expenses or the taxes we paid last year or any of the others weall use every year?We absolutely must reform Medicare and Medicaid. Our tax system is longoverdue for a serious overhaul. Paul Ryans plan, which strips awaybenefits from those least likely to be able to find coverage elsewhere, iscertainly not the answer. Nor is Barack Obamas Robin Hood proposal.Somewhere in the middle is an answer. Not the mindless slash-and-burnapproach of the new Republicans or the every-social-program-is-sacredphilosophy of the old Democrats but something in the middle.Republicans and Democrats are going to have to work together. And theyllhave to do it with a presidential election looming in 2012.Given their previous track records and the likelihood of them suddenlybehaving like grown-ups, maybe both sides were right when they debated the2011 budget reductions; we are doomed.